MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2588753820

Сравнительный анализ казахстанских протоколов диагностики и лечения в акушерстве и гинекологии с протоколами (руководствами) других стран

2014· article· ru· W2588753820 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
А Д Кызаева, AigulB Kudamanova, Г. Абенова, Г. Ерджанова, В. В. Лян, А О Мысаев

Bibliographic record

VenueVestnik · 2014
Typearticle
Languageru
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean and International Law Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPregnancyNormativeMedicinePsychological interventionFamily medicineObstetricsPolitical scienceNursingLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The pregnancy surveillance, even if the pregnancy proceeds physiologically, differs in all countries. As noted in the EuroWHO’s Document Essential Antenatal, Perinatal and Postpartum Care»(Copenhagen, 2002), the present-day antenatal care is associated with a great deal of sometimes very complex interventions and procedures where part of which is based on evidence, and the other ones are only applied because they have a long history of usage having become actually traditional. We have analyzed the relevant normative documents (diagnostics and treatment protocols) and clinical guidelines of Great Britain, Australia, Canada, Belarus and Kazakhstan. Methods: comparative analysis, content-analysis, bibliographic, historical Conclusions: The Kazakhstan Protocols «Supervision of Physiological Pregnancy» (2010) correspond to the evidentiary medicine principles. The most of procedures and measures carried out for a pregnant woman across her pregnancy coincide with the same in Great Britain, Canada and Australia.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.795
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.014

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVestnikSame topicEuropean and International Law StudiesFrench-language works237,207